Talk:Bretwalda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I also created a page (erroneously) Bretwaldas which is really just a placeholder for the list of them. I'll merge it with this. sjc

---

The British, originally were called Breta, Bretta. The Saxon language word walda (modern High German Verwalter) is translated into English language as administrator.The German language word Wald (english forrest) is connected also. user:H.J.

Further cognate moved here from article: --Henrygb 09:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

It may also be of interest to some researchers to know that 'walda' is stikingly similar to the Latvian and ancient Baltic term for overlord, 'valda'. This may suggest a Baltic descent of the original (or one of the original) 'bretwalda' or 'British overlords'.

I've just expanded the list to include all the Mercian overlords of England, rather than a select two.TharkunColl 01:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done a substantial rewrite on this as I don't think the existing article was very clear. I'm actually in favour of removing most of the kings on the list of overlords, as I think it is likely to confuse readers into thinking that there was some sort of continuity when there most definitely was not. If no one has any comments on this then I'll remove most of that list in a few days. Harthacanute 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

During the period of Mercian hegemenoy over England, mid 7th to mid 9th century, the overlordship stabilised with the kings of Mercia. This is attested by numerous charters (indeed, the title "king of the English", Rex Anglorum, was first used by them. This should not be confused with the earler period. Both Bede and the West Saxon chronicle exhibit a marked anti-Mercian bias, but this is corrected by the charters, coinage, and other sources. TharkunColl 16:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically, what I don't like is the dates on the list. It makes it seem that there was one clear overlord at all times. Is this what you're advocating? Harthacanute 16:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Not for the earlier period. But during the Mercian hegemony, the overlordship is coterminous with their reigns as kings of Mercia, because it was Mercia itself as a political entity that was dominant. TharkunColl 17:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I accept your points on Mercian hegemony, although I'd raise Simon Keynes intepretation of there being 3 stages of Mercian hegemony, with an initial phase under Penda (who's missing from the list) and Wulfhere, a second phase under Aethelbald and Offa and a third phase under Coenwulf, Ceolwulf and Beornwulf. (See, inter alia, his article in Blackwell on Mercia). What I dislike is the image this page is presenting, which is that there was some continuity of rule in Anglo-Saxon England. I've made similar points on the Kings of England discussion. On this I think we'll have to agree to differ, and, provided the warnings regarding use of the term Bretwalda remain, I'm happy to leave the list of overlords on the page. Harthacanute 17:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Harthacanute, your opinions about the title of Bretwalda are peculiar, to say the least. I've noticed that you have removed its mention in a number of articles, which you defend either by claiming that "no evidence for this title in the 7th century", or that Bede did not have this title in mind when he spoke of men huius primus imperium (H.E. 2.5).This interpretation flies in the face of authorities like Sir Frank Stenton, who believed that this title did exist (Anglo-Saxon Englsnd, pp. 33f), & more recent writers like D.P. Kirby (e.g., The Earliest English Kings, pp. 17f). Do you have any secondary sources to quote in defense for your personal opinion? Or should I assume this is the result of your original research? -- llywrch 06:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

This does indeed fly in the face of Frank Stenton who, seminal as his work may have been in the 1940s, was trying to convey a particular view of the past in his Anglo-Saxon England, with things moving steadily from small free Germanic kingdoms, through confederacy and in to the kingdom of England. His use of Bretwalda fits into this teleological approach. However, the view is now substantially dated. I'm essentially running with Simon Keynes on this:

"Bede's list is best understood as the product of personal reflection on his part. It is likely, in the same way, that the chronicler's use of the term 'Bretwalda' did not represent Ecgberht's succession to a recognised office, with powers and responsibilities particular to itself, but rather a flight of fancy, important to the chronicler but of no real importance in the unfolding course of political development." (Keynes in Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, (1999), p74)

Essentially, no one is denying the existence of overlordship, but the word Bretwalda holds particular connotations that are problematic. I haven't removed its mention in any article, but changed the text so that it is clear that the earliest record we have of the word Bretwalda being used in this context is in a late 9th-century chronicle. Hope that clarifies my editing. Harthacanute 21:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, Harthacanute. I looked again at your edits, & you are correct & I was mistaken: you have not removed any content. I apologize for saying that.

However, I am still concerned about you emphasis on one authority's opinion about this matter: Simon Keynes may be correct, but the best way to handle this in accordance to NPOV would be to explain Keynes' stance, & how it is opposed to Sir Frank's. (As a digression, re-reading ASE I failed to note a clear sense of teleological import in his discussion of Bretwalda. On one hand he writes it is a term from "encomiastic poetry", & on the other he states that the title "should not be regarded as a barabrous imitation of imperial dignity, nor can it express ... the supremacy of an English overlord over British kings." His understanding of the term is more complex than you give him credit for.)

As a last note, can you suggest one of Keynes' writings in which he explains his views on Bretwalda? Print encyclopedias focus more on packing as much information into one article than on explaining the intricacies at length. -- llywrch 06:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, on re-reading my edit I guess I'm a little harsh on Stenton - I appreciate he does have a complex and nuanced understanding of the situation. However, I still stand that his view is now substantially dated. The best exposition of Simon Keynes' view that I could find is in the New Cambridge Medieval History; I've copied the main (rather long!) paragraph here for convenience. It also deals with his concern over the use of the term Heptarchy, which I share. He goes on in the article to outline his approach. I'd be happy to incorporate a historiographical element into the Bretwalda page; perhaps you could add some other interpretations to my subpage and that can serve the basis of such a section? Harthacanute 23:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading that paragraph, I'm a little surprised that Kyenes is arguing against an interpretation of Bretwalda' that I never seriously considered was viable; had you asked me before this discussion, I would had expressed a concept of Bretwalda very close to his, that it was an attribute not a formal title. One analogy would be "Tallest boy in class": one could identify a person whom this title fit most years -- yet there is no formal title that is transferred from one individual to another. Another analogy would be "most powerful warlord" -- which is the implication Bretwalda carried.

(Keynes' opinion actually supports the deletion of the Bretwalda infoboxes that appear at the bottom of a number of pages. Personally, I've never been happy about them because they implied this was a formal title with implied rights & powers, but I haven't had either the time or the amunition to campaign for this.)

I'll see what I can find on the historiography of the term. Accounts of how informed opinion has evolved in regards to topics is one area Wikipedia has always been weak in -- not British history alone. -- llywrch 17:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have a somewhat similar view regarding the infoboxes. I think they're okay, though, in that anyone who doesn't know what Bretwalda means will click on the link and find this page which deals with (or soon will!) all the issues. Harthacanute 20:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historiographical focus

In line with what's just been said, I've toned down the language a bit in the article and given the views of Stenton and Keynes, though these could easily be expanded on. More controversially, I've also removed the list of Mercian kings from the page. It seems more and more like this page is going to be about the term Bretwalda and how it was used and applied, while having the list of Mercian kings goes back to this idea of assuming there is a fixed title and that there must be an incumbent. Increasingly it seems like we need a page on Anglo-Saxon overlordship, or perhaps more generally Anglo-Saxon kingship, which could cover the "Mercian supremacy" and all the other intracacies of early kingship. I'll make the page myself if I find time. Harthacanute 21:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Were any of Egbert's successors called Bretwalda? They weren't even overlords, unlike the Mercians, who were only excluded because of West Saxon bias. TharkunColl 21:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point, and I think you're right. If we are going for this as a page about who the title was attributed to, then I think the changes I'm about to make will make sense. Perhaps there is also scope for mentioning more of the nuances of Bede and the Chronicle on this page - i.e. why the Mercian kings are passed over. Harthacanute 23:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)